Atropos, on 6 Jan 1999 you wrote to me, as a comment on "Goodness and Society,"

Jacob, I personally follow a path closer to Altruism than Egotism. I believe that the path a group takes towards a single goal is much more rewarding than the one an individual takes.

This is the principle of 'goodness' that allowed for the creation of groups and then societies, as explained in my essay. This phenomenon is well developed only among humans. But only the principle of 'badness' can propel the advancement of the individuals that compose the group. An imbalance of these two evolutionary phenomena damages the society.

When we move forward as a group, it becomes stronger, unlike the single individual who only becomes stronger in his own right. Perhaps he would then become a leader for the rest of the group, but, without the same knowledge, the rest of the group would have no idea if they were being lead down a path of good or evil.

I take this assertion as meaning that you are very society-minded, being willing to sacrifice your personal interests on behalf of the group. Thus, you are not 'centrist' but 'leftist' in your conception of the world's --or at least your country's, town's, and family's-- welfare. Could you offer an example of an act of yours, representative of the path you follow?
The feeling of emotional reward exists only individually. The act that a group realizes has a better chance of being physically 'rewarding' -actually, successful-- in regards to the RESULTS of the action, compared to the success attained by the act of a single individual. And even when you are working within a group, your egotistical interests will be playing at the long run. It is only an acute emergency what allows for the elation of participating unselfishly in a heroic task.
As for leaders, they are always created within a group, whether for good or for evil.
A question: Why did you choose 'Atropos' as your pseudonym?

Atropos is a mythological figure of Fate. She is proud and never turning, always working at her task doing what is proper and intended, without letting herself be swayed by personal emotions.

Of the three Greek Fates, she is the one that determines life span. Your definition of 'never turning' is to the point. Tropos means 'attraction toward.' Tropism is a derivative, used in words such as phototropism. The prefix 'a' negates that quality. Thus, Atropos was not diverted by any possible attraction. This myth, unwittingly, touches on the genetic traits, which are not the only determinants of human fate, since the human being may add to them from his actions, although, unfortunately --according to the myth-- not for good, but for evil.
The myth adds that not even the gods could turn Fate. The myth is therefore deterministic. Islam follows that line, which played also an important role in some Christian dogmas, about the chosen, predestined to 'salvation.' Judaism is entirely free of such beliefs. It is basically a compendium of behavior rules, for the good of the individual and of the people. Many of them are now universal. Plenty of them were written for the benefit of ignorant people. Times have changed, not so the fanatical Jews, who are strict in the obedience of dated enactments. This is the crux of the Religious vs. Secular Jews infighting in Israel.

Secular Jews are not different to secular Christians in their customs and ways of thinking and acting. The basic difference resides in the respective Trinities, which I have explained in "Crime and Punishment Reassessed."
The claim about the People of Israel being God's favorite was excellent at Moses' time. But not now: secular Jews do not accept this outmoded dictum. But accepting that one Jew is God's 'Chosen,' and even more, His 'son,' is beyond acceptance by any Jew, liberal as he might be. Neither is the Christian belief in its supersession of the Mosaic religion (Judaism) palatable at all. Conversely, the Church has been excessibly galled by the 'obstinate' Jews' refusal to 'recognize' Jesus as God's Son and of Christianity as the 'true' religion.
The ascendance of the Church at the time of Imperial splendor was followed by a wake of hubris, personified in the belief of world conquest, not by the sword, but by the Word. It so happened that a time arrived when a sharp-minded camel- driver realized that the Arabs could be united under the banner of a new religion, which would displace their pagan beliefs and bring in vistas of moral behavior, culled from Jewish and Christian texts.
Moses, the human Jew, and Jesus, the godly Jew, were displaced by a human prophet that offered Paradise to the Islamic fallen warriors in the war against the 'infidels.' Judaism's fault consisted in not having offered any otherworldly rewards, while Christianity failed by offering only otherworldly rewards… Who could resist the genial worldly rewards of exquisite sensual pleasures? A third monotheistic religion arose, which happened to be the most successful one, changing the aspect of the world. It showed that the Sword can be more convincing that the word, especially when supported by clearly understandable rewards. Yet the ways of the world itself actually changed not at all…

Personally, I view Jesus as a person interested in modernizing Judaism, making it encompassing to all peoples, not just to the People of Israel. Retrospectibly, I can respect him and his personal endeavor. He could not have envisioned giving birth to a religious movement that would persecute his own people... Were the world's ways objectibly changed?

I honestly do not feel we, as a race (human) can grow beyond what we have become until we sit down and organize ourselves to work together and towards a greater future. Right now almost 99% of the world is looking towards themselves and how they can become great... But we need to reverse that and help each other and our whole race become great. We need to stop the greed, the hatred, the intolerance, and the infighting... It takes an effort from everyone to make a race grow to the next step... And it only takes a few lose nails to destroy all that is being worked towards.

I expect that as you read my essays touching on those subjects, you will be able to redefine your -and "the world's" or the "human race's"-- attainable objectives.

Now a question for you: Why are utensils for meat separated from those for milk and its products in a kosher kitchen?

One of the Torah laws says, "You will not boil a calf's meat in the milk of its mother." Utensils for meat are kept separated from those for foods containing milk or its derivatives, as an extension of the law preventing the cow from 'knowing' that her milk is used to boil her son or daughter. Bet you are most surprised that one of the better known Jewish 'customs' derives from a respect for animal's 'feelings.'
There are many other laws pertaining to the consideration of animals' feelings. The most impressive of them created the job called "Shochet," meaning "Slaughterer." He must utilize a perfectly sharp knife, lest the poor beast, including chickens and whatever, will suffer. Kosher meat comes from animals thus killed. This name is the Yiddish derivative of 'kasher,' meaning 'fit.'
There is a law forbidding to take eggs in the nest on a tree while the mother is present. It is unbelievable, but the respect for that law is the only act that promises long life to the person... In fact, one of the beautiful books I've read, "As a Driven Leaf," written by an American rabbi, deals on the subject, as related in the Talmud, at the time of the Roman Empire. A true story!